Craig Field

[CrazyTiger]

Hi ANTiLAG

Thanks, for the serious response. I'll give it some serious thought and will reply.

Cheers.

 

[Loudstrat]

Wether Antilag has ever owned me in a tread is up to the individual to judge. However I'll point out to the infamous "Eion Crossan revolutionised Rugby League" thread, where he ignored the existence of John Gray, as an example of his true debating skills. That is - he will recycle a point and push it long after it has been shown to be f*cking stupid. Example - his assertion that Brad Fittler as an embryo was a better pivot than Steve Carter, because Carter played pivot and Fittler played centre!

If CT should be holding hands with anyone, it's Antilag. :lol:

 

[ANTiLAG]

Well then I will give you the respect of a clean slate and take my previous post down.

 

[ANTiLAG]

Wether Antilag has ever owned me in a tread is up to the individual to judge. However I'll point out to the infamous "Eion Crossan revolutionised Rugby League" thread, where he ignored the existence of John Gray, as an example of his true debating skills. That is - he will recycle a point and push it long after it has been shown to be f*cking stupid. Example - his assertion that Brad Fittler as an embryo was a better pivot than Steve Carter, because Carter played pivot and Fittler played centre!

If CT should be holding hands with anyone, it's Antilag. :lol:

Loudstrat, you are repeatedly and objectively shown to be an illogical and unintellectual person, not to mention dishonest ala your Crossan reference - but you still make some humourous lines now and then.

Stick to your strengths and just make funnies, or if you want to relive a debate, go advocate 'toe-poking' somewhere else. Ring Halligan and tell him that he's teaching his students the wrong technique. While you're at it, ring John Gray and tell him to deny that he played Union before League.

 

[CrazyTiger]

Well then I will give you the respect of a clean slate and take my previous post down.

Hi ANTiLAG

Could you please repost that or at least PM it to me. I am happy to accept criticism
and more than willing to learn. My background is in science not law.

I think you should stand by your post.

Cheers.

 

[Miller was a legend]

It is looking promising that this corrupt organisation is going to be held to account
and pulled up for attempting a cover up. However, the fact that an ambulance officer
can speak out against the police without fear of retribution is an improvement over
15 years ago. On the other hand they may just have thought they got away with it.

I had a chat to a couple of coppers a few weeks ago (just pulled them up off the
street, explained I was interested in what they knew about tasers) and they told
me they were trained to hit the largest body mass, same as with a gun. The bloke
loosened up after a bit, and explained that in fact you were "encouraged" to shoot
people in the back with a taser (I had been quizzing them on where they were told
to shoot people). He advised me to confirm that with a weapons officer.

It would certainly appear that this goat has shot him with a gun accidentally (instead
of a taser) and the cops have tried to cover it up.

I haven't heard anything in the public domain about being encouraged to shoot
people in the back with a taser (it doesn't make any sense from an electrical safety
point of view as far as I can see).

So in your case they are told to aim for the head and the arse at the same time. Is that possible?

 

[ANTiLAG]

Hi ANTiLAG

Could you please repost that or at least PM it to me. I am happy to accept criticism
and more than willing to learn. My background is in science not law.

I think you should stand by your post.

Cheers.

I do stand by the content in my post. I am just giving you the chance to start afresh.

Just set your topic and construct your argument.

For your own knowledge and based on your previous inaccuracies you should have a gander at Hohfield, Political compass.org, maybe Entick v Carrington aftermath and LJ Coke v Parliament, maybe new view v old view of sovereignty, philosophy: act utilitarianism v rule utilitarianism, macroeconomics, contemporary sociological and traditional political science arguments... heck go have a look at legal theory or jurisprudence even if you're up for it...

Read around the subject. But most importantly, construct an argument. Go Socratic if you prefer or premise premise conclusion. I do not mind.

The state v the individual which would no doubt include the courts v parliament is a huge, sensitive and most humanities encompassing topic.

 

[CrazyTiger]

Just set your topic and construct your argument.

For your own knowledge you should have a gander at Hohfield, Political compass.org, maybe Entick v Carrington aftermath and LJ Coke v Parliament, maybe new view v old view of sovereignty, philosophy: act utilitarianism v rule utilitarianism, macroeconomics, contemporary sociological arguments... heck go have a look at legal theory or jurisprudence even if you're up for it...

Read around the subject. But most importantly, construct an argument. Go Go Socratic if you prefer or premise premise conclusion. I do not mind.

I am very happy to concede a number of points. However, you have made a number
of allegations, which I think I should be allowed to respond to (which I was busy
reading).

You have also been boastful about tearing high court judges apart. So put it back up.
I am at least prepared to have a go at looking at your lawyer stuff etc, but you
daren't contest me on engineering.

If I'm prepared to argue off my ground, at least show the courtesy of putting your
post back up, or get a real degree in science or engineering.

 

[CrazyTiger]

So in your case they are told to aim for the head and the arse at the same time. Is that possible?

You need to clarify that miller. I'm not with you.

 

[ANTiLAG]

I am very happy to concede a number of points. However, you have made a number
of allegations, which I think I should be allowed to respond to (which I was busy
reading).

You have also been boastful about tearing high court judges apart.So put it back up.
I am at least prepared to have a go at looking at your lawyer stuff etc, but you
daren't contest me on engineering.

If I'm prepared to argue off my ground, at least show the courtesy of putting your
post back up, or get a real degree in science or engineering.

You're already going off track again. Set your topic and construct your argument. Should be easy for you with your "real degree" in engineering.

 

[CrazyTiger]

You're already going off track again. Set your topic and construct your argument.

I will. But I am at a considerable disadvantage, so you should do the courtesy of reposting
what you wrote.

 

[ANTiLAG]

You are at no disadvantage. You now have the advantage of a "clean slate" coupled with your 'real degree' in engineering. Should be easy for you. I will ignore all the previous inaccuracies you posted, and I have just previously given you the leads to research many of those topics with clarity.

 

[CrazyTiger]

You're already going off track again. Set your topic and construct your argument. Should be easy for you with your "real degree" in engineering.

Just put your post back up, stop editing, and stand by what you wrote. Don't be such
a coward.

 

[CrazyTiger]

You are at no disadvantage. You now have the advantage of a "clean slate" coupled with your 'real degree' in engineering. Should be easy for you. I will ignore all the previous inaccuracies you posted, and I have just previously given you the leads to research many of those topics with clarity.

Put it back up.

 

[ANTiLAG]

I will never stop editing. Tis my right to edit.

Just construct your argument - or do you require my previous post to spoon feed ideas? Because that is not a debate, that would be me teaching you.

 

[CrazyTiger]

I will never stop editing. Tis my right to edit.

Just construct your argument - or do you require my previous post to spoon feed ideas? Because that is not a debate, that would be me teaching you.

It is your right to edit. I couldn't agree more. Yes spoon feed me. Put your post
back up. I know as much about law as you do about engineering. So put it up.

 

[Eion]

It is your right to edit. I couldn't agree more. Yes spoon feed me. Put your post
back up. I know as much about law as you do about engineering. So put it up.

If it's spoon feeding you want there'll be plenty of dining options at the new sharks development.

 

[Loudstrat]

CT he has to keep editing - because he realises he looks like the forums village idiot at times. The secret is to quote his replies ;-)

EG now he is mentioning John Gray. Referring to an earlier thread about round the corner goal kicking - he attested that his hero Crossan, with Halligan and Ridge, brought round the corner gal kicking to Australian RL in the 1980's. Everlovin Antichrist and I reminded him of the presence of John Gray a decade before - but old Jack McCoy pleaded the fifth - insisting Union kickers from NZ were responsible. This is despite the truth that the roots lay much deeper in the English goalkickers, and ultimately UK soccer.

His presence here guarantees this thread will hit over 1000 posts. It will also gaurantee that you and Pistol will suddenly look sane!

 

[CrazyTiger]

CT he has to keep editing - because he realises he looks like the forums village idiot at times. The secret is to quote his replies ;-)

EG now he is mentioning John Gray. Referring to an earlier thread about round the corner goal kicking - he attested that his hero Crossan, with Halligan and Ridge, brought round the corner gal kicking to Australian RL in the 1980's. Everlovin Antichrist and I reminded him of the presence of John Gray a decade before - but old Jack McCoy pleaded the fifth - insisting Union kickers from NZ were responsible. This is despite the truth that the roots lay much deeper in the English goalkickers, and ultimately UK soccer.

His presence here guarantees this thread will hit over 1000 posts. It will also gaurantee that you and Pistol will suddenly look sane!

I would have quoted the bloke, but I assumed he wasn't going to run. He needs to put
his bunniesman style post back up. I was looking forward to responding (and learning
in the process).

 

[ANTiLAG]

I'm not running. I'm here, ready and willing to debate with you.

This is my synopsis of your posts:

P1 I want to debate with Antilag
P2 But he won't put his previous post up
C Therefore I cannot construct my own argument.

Please tell me that I have it wrong.

Set your topic and make your case. You don't need my post.